Introduction

Much is made of the limited space available on the surface of the Earth,
especially for housing and especially in the urban areas to which people have
tended to move from the countryside. This form of "lateral thinking" has
been associated with much-regretted forms of urban sprawl and increasingly
problematic access to adequate housing in urban areas. At the same time the
urban sprawl has increased pressure on undeveloped areas, notably those provisionally
set aside as "green
belts".

The question explored here is whether there is already a case for "voluminous
thinking" -- or when such thinking may become relevant, if not essential.
By this is meant the possibility of progressive development of subterranean property,
in urban areas, notably at depths not previously considered, whether 100,
500, 1000 or 5000 metres -- or more

Most people have never considered living underground. Therefore there is very
little awareness of the potential or of the real advantages and disadvantages.
However it would be a mistake to deny the extent of underground experience
to which people are habituated in major cities (lengthy commutes in subways),
shopping malls below ground level (eg Montreal). The Channel Tunnel is another
experience which no longer invites comment.

The purpose of the following proposal is to offer triggers to the
imagination as to the possibility of property ownership and development deep
underground. The question is how people would respond to unusual
housing options offered to them. As with any opportunity, the issue is not
whether it appeals to all, but rather whether it would be acceptable, if
not welcomed, by some.

As a marketing opportunity, it focuses on the challenge of ownership
of the Earth beneath any real estate and the opportunity for the owner to
sell this unrecognized resource now to
those who anticipate the capacity to inhabit such volumes in the future.

The intention is to shift from focus on costly subsurface structures to the
potential of low cost high volume subterranean habitats offering a significant
enhancement
of quality of life.

Lateral thinking vs Voluminous thinking?

The question is why no feasibility studies are undertaken on the proportion
of people (students, nurses, shop assistants, tourists, etc) who would be prepared
to live underground -- if costly commutes could be reduced to a few minutes?

Why is it assumed that housing requirements must either be satisfied horizontally
or vertically -- and never downwards?

What is the market
for such facilities? Clearly there is some bad experience with "high rise" buildings,
but lessons have since been learnt and other parameters could make "low
fall" buildings
viable.

What factors preclude reflection on subterraneran options, notably at a time
when some consideration is even given to use of orbital colonies or to those
based on other planetary bodies?

Despite the creativity associated with the process of "lateral
thinking",
to what extent is the latter implicitly associated with:

urban sprawl, through avoidance of attention to constraints that would
evoke non-lateral solutions?

unfruitful alternation between "right" and "left" hemisphere thinking ("lateralization
of brain function") and their polarizing political analogues, when more
integrative approaches are called for?

Given the (exponentially) increasing population pressures on urban
areas, any mathematically simplistic assumptions underlying "lateral
thinking" (and leading to radial expansion over the surface of the land)
will have to be complemented by the 3D geometry of "voluminous thinking" at
some stage!

Current situation

In 2001 there were only 19 megacities. By 2015, it is estimated that there
will be about 60 megacities, most of which will be in developing countries.
Estimates predict that by 2030, 60% of the world's 8.1 billion people,
4.9 billion will dwell in cities. These increases will place an enormous
burden on land use and will lead to degradation of land 2 and forests, loss
of biodiversity, and a decline in the quality of air. Against this backdrop,
underground space will be used more and more for housing, offices, warehousing,
garages and storage as well as for infrastructure in the coming years. These
developments will promote environmentally sustainable urbanization by conserving
energy, reducing air pollution and creating more open scenery above ground,
and thereby allowing cities more land uses options. [more]

Some underground buildings are stereotypical bunkers designed to protect
people, computer systems and data, and physical objects such as paper documents,
photographs, and films. Most underground buildings, however, are attractive,
comfortable structures that serve many different functions. More than 500 nonresidential
examples in the United States include schools (from preschool to university
levels), offices, factories, warehouses, stores, libraries, performing arts
theaters, museums, convention centers, and athletic facilities.

The emphasis in what follows is however on the potential
for "subterranean" construction at much greater depths than is implied by
conventional understanding of "subsurface" construction and "earth-sheltered" buildings.

The focus here is on:

construction at depths of kilometres below the surface -- rather than metres

habitats stacked in large diameter vertical shafts rather than distributed
around large underground spaces

development approaches beyond the current business models of existing subsurface
construction corporations

The question, as with outer space, is how to establish appropriate distinctions
from a mindset dependent on what is effectively a "flatland"
approach to subterranean opportunities -- a "superficial" caricature
of "lateral thinking" where "voluminous thinking" is called for.

air conditioning
(despite considerable expertise with large office complexes), and

psychology (above all), and in the absence of appropriate consultation
to determine the possible uptake. And yet NASA and the Russians (with
European collaboration) are exploring the more difficult challenges of isolated
living in space and on a 520-day mission to Mars (Kelly Young, Volunteers
line up for simulated mission to Mars, New
Scientist, 16 August
2006). The possible development of underwater habitats has long been
envisaged (Marine Resources Development Foundation, Underwater
Habitats; David H. Szondy, Undersea
Colonies, 2007; Donald Cook, Extreme
Undersea Habitats, 2006)

There are various technical issues associated with underground office, dwelling
space, storage space and factories. Many of these have been addressed to some
degree: nuclear bunkers, mines, storage in old mines, etc

Legal (and financial) issues of subterranean property ownership

From the perspective of any conventional developer, the key issues are:

who
owns the huge volumes of space open to such development under major cities?

in the case of cities such as London, what are the subterranean implications
of leasehold over freehold for surface land?

at what prices might such subterranean property be sold in
the near future, especially if very little economic value is attached to
it now by the current owners, and especially for property at increasingly
lower depths?

what are the implications for mortgages defined in terms of land surface,
and the possibility of mortages for deep habitat acquisition ?

for banks according mortgages and obliged to foreclose, are there options
for the banks to sell the subterraneran property to recover their investment,
rather than foreclose?

what constraints are there on subdividing properties vertically for purposes
of separate sale, especially when they are not currently registered in the
surface-based cadastre?

is it possible that the future may
see a run on property rights to such volumes -- whether 50, 500,
or 5000 metres down -- notably as a result of property owners seeking to
generate revenue from their previously unrecognized assets?

More generally, what are the business opportunities for development
underground --
for subterranean development at deeper levels?

In the absence of relevant studies, some objections focus on the legal implications
(in some jurisdictions) relating to:

assumptions that ownership of surface property may (or may not) imply ownership
of the volume below down to the centre of the Earth

addressed in relation to current subsurface construction, notably for urban
underground transportation systems

subject to very different legislative restrictions, administrative jurisdictions,
and facilities in different countries (notably the responsibility of state
versus local authorities)

However some indications of the principles involved may be derived from:

Under the common law, a landowner owns not only the surface of the
land but everything below it to the center of the earth and above it to the
sky, as stated in the Latin phrase: Cujus est solum, ejus
est usque ad coelum.
In re Honolulu Rapid Transit Company, Ltd....:

[U]nless there has been a division of the estate, [the owner
of realty] is entitled to the free and unfettered control of his own
land above, upon, and beneath the surface. So whatever is in a direct
line between the surface of the land and the center of the earth belongs
to the owner of the surface. Ordinarily that ownership cannot be interfered
with or infringed by third persons. (Property
Interests in Lava Tubes, State of Hawai)

The ownership of subterranean property is an issue in the case of
groundwater banking where the overlying owners of the subterranean
space beneath their property may (or may not) have a right
exclude non-injurious use of the unoccupied aquifer storage space beneath
their property for storage of imported water. Legislative clarification
has been sought to recognize that the subterranean
property is technically part of the overlying owner's
property interest, but that it is subject to non-injurious invasion for groundwater
storage. A similar rule has been articulated with regards
to overhead flight and use of surface streams to transport foreign water
across private parcels. (Water
Transfer Issues in California, 2002)

With respect to mineral rights, there is general legal agreement that ity
is proper to distinguish in the soil (en el suelo) the right of
property in the superficies (de la superficie) from that in the depth (del
fondo.). There is not,
then, the least relation between the proprietor (of the land) and the subterranean
matter from which any right can be deduced. Typically all mines are declared
not to belong to the owner of the soil, but to be governed by mining
laws. This from the moment when a mine shall be conceded even to the proprietor
of the surface, this property shall be distinguished from that of the surface,
and thenceforth considered a new property. It has been suggested that
any legislation which does not recognize two species of property, one in
the surface of the earth, and the other in its depth, would be absurd. [more]

The law governing mineral rights is typically (in northern countries) determined
by regalian right, namely the right reserved by the whole State to dispose
of subterranean property as public property, independent of the private ownership
of the land which conceals it.

The law governing tunnel construction, following appripriation of the relevant
properties may allow the surface property to be resold.

Of particular interest are the following:

implications of existing commitments to a three-dimensional cadastre (as
in the case of Israel), namely establishment of a register of the real
property of a country, with details of the volume, the owners and
the value.

the subsurface "boundary" defined by any such register and the
implication that below that boundary there is neither owner nor value

implications with regard to potential resources, notably as understood
by mineral rights

implications with regard to as yet undiscovered buried archaeological sites

implications with regard to unconventional (traditional claims), whether
defined by custom or affirmed by treaty, expressed in terms of the surface
of the land -- notably in the case of indigenous peoples (Australian Aborigines,
Native Americans, etc)

the relevance of legal principles relating to "space property rights"
as clarified by the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which has been ratified
by 98 nations (and signed by an additional 27) specifically forbidding
property rights in space and claims by nations to such property
rights. The conventional interpretation of the treaty is
that no one at all can make property rights claims. (Sam Dinkin, Don't
wait for property rights, The Space Review, 12 July 2004)

Relevant policy issues include:

whether such development would enable younger people,
or the economically underprivileged, to get an early foot on the property
ladder?

whether such development would reduce budgetary pressures relating to more
conventional responses to urban infrastructure (housing, transport, pollution,
etc)

whether existing building regulations would inhibit such development

whether such development would raise as yet unforeseen problems
for health and safety legislation

whether subterranean construction and/or use should be facilitated by fiscal
measures

whether the number of administrative authorities, claiming a degree of
responsibility or oversight, would inhibit such development

In some cases a deliberate government policy is articulated to develop underground
building, for example:

in Moscow, Mayor Yury Luzhkov announced that
the city was going underground to solve the city's land shortage on opening
an exhibition on subterranean construction (January 2006). Vladimir Resin,
First Deputy Moscow Mayor, indicated that city
authorities plan to encourage underground development (5
June 2007).

in Tokyo, the Governor of Tokyo, recently announced
that steady progress is being made in mandatory procedures to alter the city
planning scheme so that deep subterranean construction would be possible
(Shintaro
Ishihara, Development
of Policies Commensurate with a Mature City,
Third Regular Session of the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, 2006) [more]

the northern half of Israel, where land is highly utilized, is one of
the most densely populated areas of the world. To enable continued extensive
land development, new options are being sought by the government for urban
development through more effective utilization of space both above and below
the ground surface (as well as beneath the sea). The subterranean space
is an assured source that is within reach in the near and immediate vicinity.
As in many other countries, considerable activity
is taking place in subterranean construction, with more development to be
expected, due to the solutions that it offers in the area of preserving environmental
quality and the quality of life in urban areas. [more]

In summary it would appear that distinctions should therefore be made with
respect to the following sets of policy issues:

relating to subsurface ("earth-sheltered")
development immediately below the surface in contrast
with those applicable
to much deeper habitats

relating to those (including tunnels) defined within any (three-dimensional)
cadastre in
contrast with those lying (potentially) beneath the lower boundary

relating to mineral and oil rights in subterranean property in
contrast with claims based on other factors

relating to water (aquifers) and flowing streams in
contrastwith claims
based on other factors

Preliminary technical (and financial) issues

A primary issue for investigation is whether, or under what conditions, subterranean
construction is more economical (or otherwise viable) than construction of
high rise buildings.

It is of course the case that some cities might be highly unsuitable for such
subterranean construction because of geological and other factors. In other cases,
it is assumed that four approaches might be relevant:

creating vertical shafts of sufficient diameter to provide "units" of
adequate cross-section -- one on top of the other; this implies the use of
secondary shafts for access lifts and utilities

concentrating on vertical access shafts from which horizontal tunnels
would be constructed for "units" as required -- possibly a triangular
configuration of three such shafts with the units progressively developed
between them

associating the subterranean accommodation with above-surface (possibly
high rise) facilities, where people would shift between "rooms" owned
below and those owned above ("high rise for sun,
low rise for heat")

adequate access to the surface, both under normal operating conditions
and in the event of accident or system failure

evaluation of construction costs (and consequently market value) per cubic
metre of (habitable) space created at different depths

As noted in Depth
of the Deepest Mine (The
Physics Factbook, 2003): "Many problems
arise when digging so deep into the Earth. The most obvious is the heat. For
example, at 5 km the temperature reaches 70 degrees Celsius and therefore massive
cooling equipment is needed to allow workers to survive at such depths. Another
problem is the weight of the rock. For example, at 3.5 km the pressure of rocks
above you is 9,500 tones per meter squared, or about 920 times normal atmospheric
pressure. When rock is removed through mining this pressure triples in the
surrounding rock. This effect coupled with the cooling of the rock causes a
phenomenon known as rock
bursts, which accounts for many of the 250 deaths
in South African mines every year". In the deepest mines (~3.5 km) air
pressure is roughly 2 atmospheres.

The question is how such constraints might apply in the case of shaft habitats,
rather than in a network of tunnels, especially when possible use may be made
of the temperature differential between those depths and the surface as a source
of (geothermal) energy, notably when combined with innovative use of water
both for air conditioning and for hydraulically powered lifts.

Continuing subterranean infrastructure costs. In this connection,
notably at increasing depths, issues include

maintenance of infrastructure facilities :

air conditioning, additional to experience already acquired in high
rise buildings,

lifts, additional to experience already acquired in high rise buildings,

evaluation of continuing costs per cubic metre of (habitable)
space at different depths

An effort was made in 2005 to scope out the research requirements to 2030
by the European Construction Technology Platform (Strategic
Research Agenda for the European Underground Construction Sector.
2005). Significantly it sets
out the likely directions of technological and organizational changes
that will need to be converted into specific research programmes over the
coming years. Its purpose is to guide and stimulate all those interested
with the relevant research programmes, whether from a governmental, industrial,
social, funding, policy or regulatory perspective. However its focus is
stated as follows:

Our aim is to let free above ground space for the use of the citizens,
taking the infrastructures underground. In order to do that, Underground Construction
will be efficient, safe, with a complete social acceptance and with a minimum
impact on the environment.

It is appropriate to stress again that the concern in what follows is with
habitats -- of potentially lower cost and in greater quantity -- rather than
infrastructure alone, as envisaged by that research agenda. The study is however
extremely useful in clarifying many of the research issues, notably relating
to sustainability, as discussed below.

Potential marketing concepts or modes

These aspects can be considered with respect to quite distinct marketing approaches
or "modes", whether or not they are in some way combined in any marketing campaign:

Mode A: Imaginative marketing of hypothetical property:
a marketing approach designed to provoke the imagination and elicit a financial
return in the process -- as with the market for gimmicks and executive gifts.
This approach has been notably adopted with respect to the "sale" of
land on the surface of the Moon and other planets, in exchange for which
people acquire a "legal title" (eg Lunar
Registry, LunarLandOwner.com,
Planetary Investments).
Whilst far from serious, this serves to orient people to future possibilities
by reframing their possibility of acquiring "real
estate". It may be compared with the sale of "real estate" in
cyberspace -- or of web "domains" -- which, as a business proposition,
have proven attractive to millions. Even more realistically is the
possibility for current owners of unrecognized real estate assets to sell
title to volumes beneath their property to those who anticipate the possibility
of exploiting it in the future. An ideal transaction on eBay --
especially for those with mortgage dificulties?

Mode B: Anticipatory marketing: to the extent that legal
title can be correctly ensured, a more coherent approach could be taken to
the sale of subterranean property in the case where no access is currently
possible. This applies to the case where property at depths of, for example,
5,000 metres (or 10,000 or more) can be sold in anticipation of future access
to such real estate. This speculative approach has some similarity to the
futures market. It also has some similarity to the sale of land (in past
centuries), notably on distant continents, to those who might at some stage
travel there, possibly as pioneers. An aspect of this approach might be to
generate interest to a degree which promotes a speculative run on the acquisition
of such properties and the rapid revaluation of their worth.

Mode C: New frontier: The enterprise would emphasize
the extent to which subterranean habitats represented a new frontier,
calling for a degree of courage and daring. Orbital environments (space colonies)
and undersea habitats have been tentatively presented in this way -- and
are the subject of high profile documentaries (and the commercial possibility
of seat reservation). It may be argued that underground environments are
more accessible to pioneering endeavour, especially if opportunities for
underground habitat construction can to some useful degree be framed in the
same way as cabin construction in wilderness areas by the pioneers of the
past. (cf Martin Fackler. Letter
from Tokyo: Opening up a new urban frontier deep underground. Independent,
8 July 1998).

Mode D: Normal sale of real estate: sale of developed
subterranean property following the many formulae already developed for conventional
real estate (including time-sharing and leasehold). This might include the
notable variants of:

completed construction (ready to move in)

partially completed construction, where some rooms were habitable
but others required further work

uncompleted construction, where owners would apply their own building
skills to completion, or even to extension of the space (a striking model
in this respect is the Australian subsurface town of Cooper
Pedy).

Mode E: Demonstration marketing: restricted sale of property
for hotel and other facilities specifically in order to function as a demonstration
of what subterranean accommodation might be like, as a prelude to actual development
or as a means of marketing subterranean habitats (at whatever depth)

Mode G: Research: initially at least (and as
further discussed below), the economic viability
of such an initiative can be presented in relation to research on more general
and longer-term interests, whether oriented to space travel or to backup
facilities in the event of systems collapse on Earth. The range of research
themes points to the probability of interest on the part of various R&D
communities, whether academic or application oriented. Many would therefore
be of interest as themes of imaginative postgraduate study -- including the
economics of commercial potential.

Of relevance to any imaginative marketing strategy is that such options have
to some extent been prefigured in numerous science fiction scenarios with which
several generations are familiar.

Indication of conditions of viability
of market approaches

.

Research
funding

Hypothetical
title to property

Confirmed
title to property

Access
to property

Constructed
habitat

Now

Mode G

Modes A,C,E,F

Modes B,C,E,F

Future (10-years)

Mode G

Modes B,C

Modes B,C,D,E

Modes D,E,F

Future (10-50 years)

Mode G

Mode B

Mode D

Mode D

Evaluation of economic viability and marketing

The associated issues may be clustered as follows:

Marketing: Issues include:

given the golden real estate rule ("location, location, location"),
what weight would be attached to high proximity to urban centres, possibly
combined with ready access to green zones (especially if constructed
beneath them)

impact of subterranean depth on purchase, rental or running costs

whether the (rental or purchase) cost would be sufficiently attractive
compared to that of above-surface accommodation options

whether the option would be attractive:

as a primary residence (for students, urban dwellers, etc), and
perhaps especially for those with physical handicaps challenged
by access to surface facilities and transportation systems where
little provision has been made for the disabled

as a secondary residence or service apartment (for workers with
an above-surface house elsewhere, thereby allowing more people to
live in distant rural areas -- over the weekend -- if they only had
a few minutes commute during the week)

as a temporary residence, possibly in the form of a hotel (for
tourists, business visitors, etc)

whether time-sharing options might apply

attractiveness for facilities other than accommodation:

hotels, convention centres

restaurants, entertainment facilities

warehouses

offices

educational facilities, penal institutions

medical facilities

Access to facilities: These need to be distinguished
from those already associated with high-rise units (with which they would
compete):

access to parks

reduced horizontal transportation

access to medical facilities

access to entertainment facilities

access to schools

"Subjective" issues: These need to be distinguished
from those already associated with high-rise units (with which they would
compete), recognizing that these issues will be assessed differently by different
clusters of people faced with the need to make compromises in their choices:

Security issues and risks: accidents (structural
failure, flooding, fire), disasters (earthquakes), utility failure (electricity,
water, etc), crime (as evident in some high rise buildings) and terrorism.
Clearly there are aspects of subterranean habitats which may be
perceived as offering a higher order of security than normal -- as is
the case with the rising numbers of gated communities and the vulnerability
of high rise buildings to some forms of gang intimidation or terrorism.

Psychosocial issues: comparison with "gated
communities"
and intentional communities; weight attached to claustrophobia (vs
agoraphobia) and the associated phenomenon of increased cocooning;
whether the values associated with "penthouse" high-rise
preferences translate in any way into the
"deepest" subterranean habitats. It is appropriate to note
that throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, more than 70
undersea habitats were put into operation, manned by aquanauts from a
variety of nations; new possibilities are under conditions (Chris Wright,
Sleeping
with the Fishes, 2007). Behavioural indicators from undersea
habitats have long provided guidelines for consideration of analogous
issues in space environments.

Access to light: this is typically cited as a fundamental
issue, even by commuters who seldom see the light of day from their
homes, or possibly from their workplaces; the value of the proximity
of light and greenery (via an elevator ride) needs to be explored, especially
for those urban dwellers who otherwise have to travel significant distances
to have such experience

Sense of well-being: such issues are discussed below
in relation to quality of life

Symbolic issues: these can be fruitfully explored
from a number of aspects to which different potential subterranean inhabitants
would be variously sensitive or indifferent:

a womb-like experience for those valuing the sense of shelter and
security offered by enclosure (possibly including some with autistic
tendencies)

a sense of an especially "grounded" existence with a
special relationship to the "bowels of the Earth"

religious and theological sensitivity primarily associated with
surface features of a holy land (as scripturally defined) in contrast
to a degree of possible indifference relating to volumes hundreds
of metres below with which there is no psychocultural identification;
such flexibility might opens up negotiating possibilities in situations
as the Middle East (notably in the light of the compromises made
regarding use of surfaces of the Holy Sepulchre by different Christian
denominations) [more]

caricatures of such inhabitants as "troglodytes" and "dwarves"
(demonstrably a matter of indifference to the inhabitants of Cooper
Pedy, to cave dwellers of the past or of the 20th
century,
or even to those inhabiting earthen structures)

caricatures of such habitats as "ant burrows" (of little significance
in comparison with caricatures of skyscrapers as "ant hills" or "termite
mounds")

Evaluation of market segmentation

The previous section points to the need for a careful evaluation of the actual
and potential market, depending on sensitivity to how the enterprise is framed
and publicized.

Beyond the purely economic factors highlighted above, and those relating to
greater convenience, of particular interest is segmentation based on culture,
tradition and personality type. To what personality types is such an enterprise
likely to appeal, and possibly to what age groups?

younger generations because of adventurous aspects of the challenge,
especially at deeper levels

older generations because of the security and potentially better access
to green space

families with children, again because of access to green space -- but possibly
also security

There are also interesting issues in relation to those who have very little
possibility of normal access to housing and whether this proposals also suggests
opportunities for various forms of government funded "social housing":

for the elderly with inadequate pensions, notably in the light of aging
populations in some countries

for those of no fixed abode and obliged to sleep in the street

in particular conditions of high population in developing countries (favelas,
etc)

Environmental, resource and quality of life issues

Various issues can be usefully highlighted:

Energy requirements: A key question, relating to financial
issues discussed above, is whether subterranean habitat construction and
occupation can be achieved in such a way as to be either more economic and/or
more environmentally sensitive than surface construction, notably in comparison
with high-rise buildings. What indeed might be the environmental
footprints of such development? Careful comparative study is required
of above and below surface costs of:

construction (especially given the opportunity of opening
up levels deeper than it is feasible to go higher)

air conditioning (especially given the different degree of access to
the atmosphere)

heating/cooling (especially given the different degrees of exposure
to vagaries of weather). Underground building is already a recognized
method for energy conservation.

operation of lifts/elevators (especially given the opportunity of opening
up much deeper levels)

drainage and pumping (especially where the water table is relatively
high)

The key issue is the extent to which, and the conditions under which, subterranean
construction can substitute for surface construction, especially in the light
of surface transportation and environmental costs. Given the significantly
higher temperatures at great depths (notably in the light of exeprience in
deep mines), deep habitats suggest options that have not been discussed in
relation to reduction of emissions due to the heating costs of conventional
surface habitats -- however these advantages might be outweighed by air conditioning
and cooling costs (if energy benefits cannot be derived from such levels).

Green belt preservation: A current issue is the
degree to which housing requirements will necessarily be given higher priority
than preservation or extension of green belts and their associated wildlife.
Clearly there is every possibility that such subterranean habitats could
be constructed in proximity to green belts or even beneath them -- possibly
even beneath urban parkland (eg in the case of London: Hyde Park, Regents
Park, or Hampstead Heath). It is however appropriate to note articulated
concerns of development by stealth (The Heath and Hampstead Society, Undermining
Hampstead, 2007).

Air pollution: Clearly by reducing urban transportation,
increasing air pollution can be avoided and possibly significantly reduced
(which may be of special interest to those with certain respiratory challenges).
Of particular interest is the nature of cooling/heating for subterranean
habitats and its effects on air pollution. Clearly attention has to be given
to vulnerabilities associated with dissemination of substances through closed
systems (the airplane infection effect).

Noise pollution: Of great interest is the manner in which
subterranean habitats can be designed so as to minimize noise pollution and
vibration -- in notable contrast to above surface accommodation. This may
be especially relevant in the case of noisy neighbours and the considerable
projected increase in aircraft
traffic.

Light pollution: Although ranked as a minor concern, it is appropriate
to note that subsurface construction necessarily reduces light pollution.

Health: It is possible that subterranean dwelling, with
easy access to green space and minimum commutes, would encourage a shift
in life styles with increasing numbers walking or biking to work. It might
be especially valued by those with allergies, or disabilities dependent
on easy access to medical facilities.

Reuse of brown-field development land: Subterranean construction
under brown field sites might well avoid some of the pollution issues associated
with surface development on those sites.

Appropriate use of surface spaces: Some of the above options
point to the possibility of making more appropriate use of land surface by
moving some infrastructure "down"

Privacy and related security issues: These issues are
well-recognized in high-rise apartment blocks and require corresponding attention
in the light of the learnings there. Possibilities might include the capacity
to order (and pay for) a "private" elevator car for a particular
journey at a particular time

Quality of life and sense of well-being: A vital dimension,
for those free to choose between subterranean and surface dwelling, would
be whether subterranean dwelling offered a greater sense of quality of life.

Demonstration, research and testing opportunities

Demonstration: In contrast to the conventional approach
to offering people the opportunity of visiting "demonstration homes" and "sites",
more is required to give credibility to subterranean facilities.
The photographic study of Wayne Barrar (The
Machine Room: Visualising a Commodified Subterra, 2002-2006) is a
step in that direction.

People need to be able to live, however briefly (overnight or for a weekend)
below ground in the types of construction that would be feasible. They need
the opportunity of getting a sense of the infrastructure (notably the lifts)
and the facility of access to the service. As with passengers on cruise ships,
they also need to be given some familiarity with security features (bulkhead
doors) and secondary access tunnels.

Such experiences could be extended into:

a form of holiday typical
of tourism to a major city -- and certainly a potentially attractive option
on visiting some locations (an example is the marketing of the Ice
Hotel in
Lapland).

early use of
underground convention centres (as proposed for Ottawa)
-- recognizing that a number are already constructed just beneath the surface
(Tokyo,
Edinburgh,
Toronto, Birmingham, Turin),
or with limited exposure to outside light (Brussels)

underground retreat centres, "a quiet space to get away from it all",
possibly even extending to a form of hermitage

underground places of celebration and worship, exemplified by the complex
of underground temples constructed by the Damanhur
community in Italy

Research: A demonstration/test environment would enable
and encourage exploration of issues such as the following, a number of which
could be associated with analogous research with regard to space habitats:

environmental control (air, water, heat, etc), notably where account
must be taken of particular geological conditions (high/low water table,
geothermal opportunities, etc)

recycling (air, water, etc)

structural design, notably modular design reducing vulnerability to earthquakes
(Japan) and various forms of system failure

aesthetic design, as a challenge to architects, landscape gardeners,
and interior decorators

"home extension" opportunities, notably the conditions under which individuals
could extend their units into the surrounding volume in a "do-it-yourself"
spirit, exemplified by accepted practice in Cooper Pedy subsurface dwellings.

psychosocial factors, notably building on past research on disruption
of circadian rhythms; ironically the rapid orientation to the virtual environments
of cyberspace can be recognized as a form of anticipation of the impact
of cocooning in spaces of choice (whether subterranean or not)

viability for particular groups: especially interesting is the possibility
that particular groups may prefer such environments under certain conditions
(elderly, students, etc) or consider them as tolerable as the current facilities
offered (penal establishments, etc)

opportunities for gardening/horticulture: this may be seen as a significant
attractor (and compensation) and requires exploration of how spaces (of
what size) could be viably created for individual initiative, possibly
in contrast with the allotment model

opportunities for agriculture: this could parallel research into the
need for such facilities on long space journeys or at their destination

opportunities for animal husbandry: given the extent to which intensive
farming is already practiced without exposure to normal light, underground
facilities are a natural extension

Research on economic viability: Further to points made above,
the scope of any such "voluminous"
undertaking suggests a wide range of socio-economic research required to substantiate
possibilities. This could usefully include:

learnings from the implantation of high-rise buildings in urban environments,
the arguments originally presented and the blindspots subsequently highlighted

windows of viability beyond the advantages of high-rise buildings, namely
the point at which the cost of subterranean extension downwards is below
the cost of surface extension upwards (or even laterally)

the factors that would ensure that subterranean habitats
are recognized as offering a higher quality of life than surface construction
and especially high-rise surface construction, whether or not a premium
price is placed on access to this advantage

Closed environments: Both demonstration and research could
be related more generally to the challenge of closed environments, exemplified
by the emerging concerns with respect to space environments, but given particular
focus by the probability of environmental, economic or social system collapse
on Earth. In contrast with an open system approach to the unconstrained expansion
of the human population and its use and disposal of resources, particular constraints
must necessarily be taken into account where the need to recycle becomes essential.
Such closed environments may only be recognized as an option by some, but certain
forms of system collapse may render them essential. This was first recognized
in relation to the (past) nuclear threat. It remains a concern in relation
to possible future biological and security threats: epidemics, bioterrorism,
etc. The concern is of course increasingly recognized in preferences for residence
in "gated communities".

Time factors: urgency, anticipation, phasing

Urgency: the case of the United Kingdom:

John Prescott calls for radical thinking about housing (Editorial,
Guardian, 19 July 2002), especially
in the South East -- where it is estimated that some
120,000 housing units are required. Green belt land is to be progressively
sacrificed. At what point will consideration be given to the possibility
that far more people can live in Central London -- beneath existing housing?

In anticipation of the anniversary of 11th September consideration
is being given to contingency plans for the evacuation of London (Independent,
17 September 2002) and notably the financial square mile.

On taking office as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown (July 2007) announced
plans for a massive housing construction programme, notably taking advantage
of brown field sites.
He stated that tackling the shortage of affordable
housing was his main priority and has promised to build three
million new homes by 2020 (Brown announces
plans for 3 million houses, Telegraph, 11 July 2007).

In response to the exponentially increasing usage of London's Heathrow
airport, BAA is seeking planning approval in 2007 for a third runway
-- which will displace local communities and destroy green belt
facilities -- using arguments that will presumably have to reinvoked
when the new facility becomes overloaded

Curiously
no study has been made of the feasibility of underground housing for London.
This may well be extremely relevant to the position of Kent -- especially
given its experience with the Tunnel project. The question is why no effort
is made to look into the conditions of feasibility. Given the chalk beds
in the South East and the equipment already used for tunnelling, surely a
feasibility study is merited.

Anticipating the need: the more general case: Clearly
an important issue is when use of subterranean volumes will be viable in
economic and environmental terms, and where, and which factors will force
the issue more rapidly.

The concern then will be with what degree of anticipation such possibilities
need to be explored and tested, responding to whatever restrictions and constraints
emerge

Phasing use: Clearly there would be reasonable reluctance
to use such facilities if it was assumed that it implied a permanent move
underground. On the other hand, as with underground transportation, the use
of subterranean facilities is acceptable for a time. The question is what
proportion of the daily or weekly cycle some people would be willing to spend
in subterranean facilities ("downtime") and what proportion of "up
time"
would be felt to be appropriate. Such issues figure in relation to remote
research stations, including space stations, and in the case of incarceration.

Obviously preferences would vary and may themselves vary over a year. Downtime
might be more acceptable in winter for example (Montreal malls).

Phasing extension: Subterranean construction can be usefully
structured so that further extension in depth can be envisaged whenever this
is considered appropriate. This contrasts with the constraints on vertical
extension of existing high-rise buildings.

Examples and clarifications

It should be emphasized again that the focus in this proposal is not on "buried"
construction and dwellings, or habitats at a depth of less that 50 metres,
but on the possibilities at much greater depths. Much of the literature focuses
on "subsurface" constrtuction and not on construction at deeper levels,
whether or not the same principle apply.

Clearly some sites offer a considerable comparative advantage with respect
to subterranean construction and the advantage such construction would offer
in terms of access (eg financial capitals capable of offering access to their
central business districts)

Partially sunken buildings: How underground
must a building be, to be an underground building? (cf Loretta Hall, Underwhere?).
Some applications focus on partially sunken housing, in contrast with this
proposal.

Overground entrance facility: People are more comfortable
entering an underground building through an inviting structure, rather than
(as an extreme example) descending a stairway through an unadorned hole in
the sidewalk. Centennial
Science and Engineering Library (CSEL) at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque
presents an example of a prominent entryway to an underground structure. Freestanding
kiosks may be used by architects to provide attractive, protected access to
elevators and stairways.

Protected constructions: More far fetched perhaps, but perhaps
an interesting option -- given attention to the risks of terrorist strikes,
nuclear attacks, and biological warfare -- is the question of protected environments.
Possibly a case could even be made for a form of construction of some
"high rise" buildings which could be lowered into subterranean vaults
in the event of such risks.

Going Underground
(report by Angus Watson, House and Home,Financial Times, 7-8 August 2010)

Derek Taylor, head of development control for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, says: 'Ten years ago, there were virtually no applications to dig large basements. Four years ago, it seemed that every second application was a basement conversion.' In the past three years, the borough granted 461 'digging-down' applications, rejected 42 and 66 are pending.... Theoretically, since they are invisible, basements fall under permitted development rights and are not subject to planning control. Guy Bransby, director of Jones Lang LaSalle, who devised Jon Hunt's five-storey basement application, says: 'If you can't see something, it doesn't make any difference.' In Hunt's case, his London borough judged that creating such a vast underground area changed the character of a listed building, and so denied it.... Perhaps the only limit to mega-basements is developers' and oligarchs' imaginations. What's next? A swimming pool that drains to reveal a helipad? A private underground rollercoaster? Perhaps in 20 years' time we'll see 20-storey 'magma-scrapers' popping down all over London.

There are around 40 abandoned or unused Underground stations in England's capital -- huge caverns of prime real estate going to waste in one of the world's most expensive cities. As transport patterns changed over the past century, the underground network waxed and waned, with new stations opening and others closing to match demand....

Ajit Chambers is a former City of London banker who quit finance to set up the Old London Underground Company in 2009, which is leasing the subterranean land from the city. He hopes to transform these old stations into an array of nightclubs, museums, restaurants and galleries, turning subterranean London into the city's newest tourist attraction. Chambers recently invited me below ground at the Brompton Road Tube station in West London, which he intends to turn into a restaurant and museum in time for the 2012 Olympics. There are also plans for public tours of the War Rooms.

London's 'ghost stations' are a paradise for urban explorers, daredevils who compete for the most spectacular photos of their visits to the abandoned labyrinths that stretch under the capital. But the party may be over, as London seeks to transform its abandoned tube stations into a powerhouse of urban development, and address the problem of expansion in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

Ex-banker Ajit Chambers, 41, is leading a campaign to push the ghost stations into service. The founder of the Old London Underground Company has plans to develop 26 sites with an estimated value of £3.6 billion. He envisages leasing and converting them into retail parks, entertainment centers, offices and cultural experiences....

In a 2013 report, the US National Research Council suggested that "facilities underground may be the most successful way to encourage or support the redirection of urban development into sustainable patterns."

"It's absolutely a growth area," says Mark Hansford, editor of theNew Civil Engineer. "All the businesses we talk to anticipate growth in construction of ever deeper underground spaces. In London a growing number of properties are three or four stories deep. With so little space there has to be new ways to make use of it." Hanford says that technology has played a role, with the development of self-supporting concrete, and 3D computational modeling that allows architects to plan at ever-greater depths with minimized risk. "There has been development of skill in underground tunneling that gives confidence to clients now, that projects will be built on time and budget," says Hansford.

Hansford adds that energy costs could be significantly lowered through the warmer atmosphere underground, another inducement for potential occupants. For the future of business, the only way is down.

Thinking "voluminously" underwater?
A Japanese engineering company, Shimizu Corporation,
has released ambitious designs for an underwater city,
a modern-day Atlantis
(Julian Ryall, Ocean Spiral - city of the future: in pictures, The Telegraph, 21 November 2014)

A series of underwater eco-villages, entirely self-sufficient, spiraling "oceanscrapers" reaching the sea floor,
are planned by Vincent Callebaut through the Aequorea project.
They would be constructed using recycled plastics from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch
Tom Jenkins (Plans for underwater 'oceanscraper' revealed, CNN, 4 January 2016)

Enabling technology breakthroughs

The rate at which exploration of the new frontier can be rendered feasible
is dependent on development and adaptation of technologies (in fields in which
there is already a rapid rate of R&D) such as:

vertical tunnelling of large diametre shafts (possibly staggered, as with
banks of lift shafts)

new flexibility in assembling and disassembling tunnelling large machines
for reuse

adaptation and greater automation of technology for placement of shoring
segments (effectively to constitute the walls of vertically stacked units)

phased extension of the vertical shaft from berlow, notably after the shaft
above has been occupied by habitats

enhanced modularity of habitats:

where prefabrication (and possibly lowering down the shaft is preferable)

to guarantee a degree of self-sufficiency
for a period following any systems failure

possibility of low-tech high manpower varriants of relevance to highly
populated developing countries

Architects have designed an incredible 65-storey 'earth-scraper' which plunges 300 metres below ground. The stunning upside down pyramid in the middle of Mexico City is designed to get around height limits on new buildings in the capital.The subterranean building will have 10 storeys each for homes, shops and a museum, as well as 35 storeys for offices.
Esteban Suarez, from architecture firm BNKR Arquitectura, said the building would also house a new cultural centre. He said:

New infrastructure, office, retail and living space are required in the city but no empty plots are available.

Federal and local laws prohibit demolishing historic buildings and even if this was so, height regulations limit new structures to eight storeys.

The city's historic centre is in desperate need of a makeover but we have nowhere to put it, this means the only way to go is down.

The Earthscraper preserves the iconic presence of the city square and the existing hierarchy of the buildings that surround it.

It is an inverted pyramid with a central void to allow all habitable spaces to enjoy natural lighting and ventilation.

It will also allow the numerous activities that take place on the city square year round such as concerts, open-air exhibitions and military parades to go ahead.

Enabling legislative and jurisdictional breakthroughs

As noted earlier, a number of countries and/or cities are already taking the
need for enabling legislation and administration very seriously.

The question here is how to distinguish between the subsurface (and surface-related)
issues and those which could be reframed as relating to another domain -- somewhat
as is done with overseas territories (or the French DOM/TOMs).
Special provisions for enclaves provide another example,
as with government creation of "free trade zones" from
which inhibiting regulations have been removed (cf Resources
on Renaissance Zones, 2003).

Recognizing the need for imaginative social projects and a "new frontier",
there is considerable advantage to creating exploratory zones, notably as
a means of channelling the spocial frustrations of the young in an over-organized
society.

The proposal opens the possibility for each country, potentially including
the smallest, to have an "open frontier" -- but fundamentally an "inner" one,
much as the kibbutz movement originally functioned in Israel.

The challenge for authorities lies in:

whether they claim (and take) responsibility for providing facilities
(and opportunities) and avoiding the exposure of members of their populations
to any level of risk considered unacceptable by the majority, or

whether they recognize the right of individuals voluntarily to take responsibility
for themselves in potentially risky situations, possibly by requiring a contractual
release from state responsibility (notably as forseen in the case of some
extreme sports)

A striking current demonstration of the contrast is the increasing contractual
use of security forces provided by private corporations in Iraq -- forces which
cannot be held to the same standards of behaviour as normal military forces.
In effect such measures deliberately provide for activities by proxy -- supposedly "beyond" government
oversight.

Relevant industries, expertise and government authorities

mining / excavating / tunnelling

pumping

air conditioning

electrical

lifts

venture capital market

transport

environment -- UNEP

housing -- UNHCS

health and safety -- WHO / ILO

Missing international authorities for subterranean initiatives include equivalents
to ICAO and ESA

Tina Grady Barbaccia. Creative Underground Reclamation Options: from office
space and warehouses to bat habitats, there are many viable and often lucrative
options for underground mines. Aggregates Manager, May 2006 [text]

H. Sandberg. Utilizing Spaces under the Surface of the Earth: Judicial Aspects (a
professional opinion presented to the State of Israel, Ministry of National
Resources, National Land Administration and Ministry of Justice), April 2000
(In Hebrew).